The Fora: A Higher Education Community

I'm in an interdisciplinary Humanities field and currently deciding between two programs.

School A is top of the interdisciplinary field (which is a relatively small one).
-Very well respected and seen as one of the leaders of the field.
-Great fit intellectually.
-The only drawbacks are the location (I hate it and its $$$) and that most of its students place into interdisciplinary departments. I'm not sure if this is because of preference or inability to be considered by traditional departments. The institution itself is well known, on the level of places like Tufts, NYU, Northwestern, Boston College, USC.

I know institutional prestige normally dosen't matter. However the second school is Harvard.
-Their program is still top ranked within the field, but most of those in the field see Harvard as conservative and not cutting edge.
-The prestige seems to carry over into traditional departments since unlike school 1 - most of the students place into History and English departments.
-There are some organizational issues with the program (because its a program consisting of a committee - not a department, many students have said they've sometimes felt not prioritized).
-That being said, all the students have said faculty have been a highlight of the program. And the 3 advisors I would have are GREAT and have been said to be amongst the best and most student committed.
-More $$$$, better location.



I've been reading different things about how much the "Ivy" pedigree matters in the job market. This situation is even more nuanced for me since my discipline is small and interdisciplinary - I'm not sure how much field reputation matters since I'll likely be sending job apps all over the place. If school 1 seems to be a better fit on paper - and has a better reputation, is it stupid to go to the less cutting edge Harvard program for the name brand and advisors? Is there much a difference between a Harvard degree and a non ivy but still elite degree from schools like Northwestern or NYU or USC?

Quote from: gael2020 on April 03, 2020, 04:15:44 PM


I know institutional prestige normally dosen't matter. However the second school is Harvard.

That's news to me. As far as I can see, institutional prestige (at least in my humanities field) matters a lot. A lot a lot. A degree from Harvard (or one of its few pedigree-equivalents) would give you a shot at an R1/R2/elite SLAC job in my field. A degree from somewhere else (even if it's tops for the subfield) will not. It also helps to have a degree from a university everybody recognizes when you're applying for stuff outside your field/outside the academy. It won't matter if, say, IU Bloomington is tops in your field, because nobody outside the academy (or maybe outside your field) knows anything about IUB. But everybody assumes Harvard must be tops by default.

I don't think prestige is the be-all/end-all that some others do, but it's clear to me that it matters in all kinds of indirect ways, and those add up. So it's not something to be discounted.

Quote from: gael2020 on April 03, 2020, 04:15:44 PM
I'm in an interdisciplinary Humanities field and currently deciding between two programs.

School A is top of the interdisciplinary field (which is a relatively small one).
-The only drawbacks are the location (I hate it and its $$$) and that most of its students place into interdisciplinary departments.

To my mind, those are big drawbacks. You can't control where you'll live after grad school, because that will depend on an oversupplied market. But you can control where you spend the next 7 years, and liking where you live makes a HUGE quality of life difference. And having enough money to be comfortable also makes a huge difference.

Quotemy discipline is small and interdisciplinary - I'm not sure how much field reputation matters since I'll likely be sending job apps all over the place.

I think pedigree would matter more under those circumstances, because the people evaluating you won't necessarily have good benchmarks if they're coming from other fields (rather than the same kind of interdisciplinary program). Name recognition will matter.

QuoteIs there much a difference between a Harvard degree and a non ivy but still elite degree from schools like Northwestern or NYU or USC?

It depends. In a lot of cases, I think there's no substantive difference--and, depending on the area of specialization in question, the Ivy may well be a lot worse than some of the non-Ivies. But a big, well-endowed Ivy like Harvard (or Yale, or Princeton) comes with a lot of indirect benefits (e.g. the coming economic catastrophe won't completely fuck them, better funding, the colloquium budget is bigger/won't get slashed, maybe a major journal/press is housed on campus, etc.). Those small perks and things add up fast. And everyone outside the academy knows what Harvard is, and is impressed by default. Not so USC. (In fact, very much not so USC, for ordinary Californians--USC has a bit of a dodgy rep there.)

NYU might be different. It's a bit of a weird institution when it comes to these things. In my field, you absolutely should choose NYU (the top department in the world) over Harvard (which I think is overrated, but that's clearly just me), and even though nonacademics might not know much about it, it would still be a pretty safe bet. But I'm not confident that that translates across all other disciplines.

Quote
That's news to me. As far as I can see, institutional prestige (at least in my humanities field) matters a lot. A lot a lot. A degree from Harvard (or one of its few pedigree-equivalents) would give you a shot at an R1/R2/elite SLAC job in my field. A degree from somewhere else (even if it's tops for the subfield) will not. It also helps to have a degree from a university everybody recognizes when you're applying for stuff outside your field/outside the academy. It won't matter if, say, IU Bloomington is tops in your field, because nobody outside the academy (or maybe outside your field) knows anything about IUB. But everybody assumes Harvard must be tops by default.

I don't think prestige is the be-all/end-all that some others do, but it's clear to me that it matters in all kinds of indirect ways, and those add up. So it's not something to be discounted.

I've been reading/hearing all over that the prestige of the department matters greatly while the prestige of the institution matters less so (some say not at all). That being said, I'm not sure how much of a difference in prestige there is between a Harvard and NYU degree, institutionally speaking. Outside of the academy, NYU is nothing to laugh at but wouldn't compare to Harvard I'd say.

Quote
To my mind, those are big drawbacks. You can't control where you'll live after grad school, because that will depend on an oversupplied market. But you can control where you spend the next 7 years, and liking where you live makes a HUGE quality of life difference. And having enough money to be comfortable also makes a huge difference.

This is a bit complicated as this school is in the city I've grown up my entire life. So I have a support network here but I'd be stuck in a place I've been for a long time (and have grown sick of, honestly). Toughing it out for another 5 years wouldn't tank my mental health but I've heard that its always preferable to "go somewhere" specifically to do your doctorate (and also that it looks better to have regional variety on your CV).

That being said, I've never lived outside my home city, and so maybe I underestimate the emotional struggles of doing a PhD where you don't have roots/community. What has your experience been?

QuoteIt depends. In a lot of cases, I think there's no substantive difference--and, depending on the area of specialization in question, the Ivy may well be a lot worse than some of the non-Ivies. But a big, well-endowed Ivy like Harvard (or Yale, or Princeton) comes with a lot of indirect benefits (e.g. the coming economic catastrophe won't completely fuck them, better funding, the colloquium budget is bigger/won't get slashed, maybe a major journal/press is housed on campus, etc.). Those small perks and things add up fast. And everyone outside the academy knows what Harvard is, and is impressed by default. Not so USC. (In fact, very much not so USC, for ordinary Californians--USC has a bit of a dodgy rep there.)

NYU might be different. It's a bit of a weird institution when it comes to these things. In my field, you absolutely should choose NYU (the top department in the world) over Harvard (which I think is overrated, but that's clearly just me), and even though nonacademics might not know much about it, it would still be a pretty safe bet. But I'm not confident that that translates across all other disciplines.

Interesting. Why is it a weird institution in that respect?

And safety and risk management is definitely where my head is at. I feel as if a Harvard degree will open more doors and has more legibility across spaces. In the non academic world, I feel as if a NYU degree in Ethnic Studies in New York - or a USC degree in Ethnic Studies in California would get a "huh" whereas a Harvard degree, for better or worse, turns heads. In this day and age, and job market, I feel as if its silly to choose fit or potential over security. But I don't know if I'm thinking of this right.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 03, 2020, 05:18:40 PM

It depends. In a lot of cases, I think there's no substantive difference--and, depending on the area of specialization in question, the Ivy may well be a lot worse than some of the non-Ivies. But a big, well-endowed Ivy like Harvard (or Yale, or Princeton) comes with a lot of indirect benefits (e.g. the coming economic catastrophe won't completely fuck them, better funding, the colloquium budget is bigger/won't get slashed, maybe a major journal/press is housed on campus, etc.). Those small perks and things add up fast. And everyone outside the academy knows what Harvard is, and is impressed by default. Not so USC. (In fact, very much not so USC, for ordinary Californians--USC has a bit of a dodgy rep there.)

NYU might be different....

For what it is worth, until very recently (25 years ago?) NYU had a rather poor reputation, for students too rich for City and too dumb for Columbia. My recollection is that NYU essentially bought its way out of being a mediocre commuter school in the 1990s, in part by attracting a lot of international students. While its graduate program (at least in history) is top notch, I am not sure about the calibre of its undergraduates. And, given the choice, I might still prefer to get a doctorate from Columbia. (Note: my degree is from neither, and both NYU and Columbia rejected me.)

That said, if you have your heart set on doing a graduate degree in an interdisciplinary program in the humanities, then choose school A if you are independently wealthy or only interested in the intellectual stimulation of the degree. Otherwise, choose Harvard because it would make you more attractive to a wide range of schools who do not care about your speciality.

This is assuming, of course, that Harvard offers you a good package. I don't think I would advise anybody to get a humanities degree from anywhere on their own dime.

QuoteFor what it is worth, until very recently (25 years ago?) NYU had a rather poor reputation, for students too rich for City and too dumb for Columbia. My recollection is that NYU essentially bought its way out of being a mediocre commuter school in the 1990s, in part by attracting a lot of international students. While its graduate program (at least in history) is top notch, I am not sure about the calibre of its undergraduates. And, given the choice, I might still prefer to get a doctorate from Columbia. (Note: my degree is from neither, and both NYU and Columbia rejected me.)

That said, if you have your heart set on doing a graduate degree in an interdisciplinary program in the humanities, then choose school A if you are independently wealthy or only interested in the intellectual stimulation of the degree. Otherwise, choose Harvard because it would make you more attractive to a wide range of schools who do not care about your speciality.

This is assuming, of course, that Harvard offers you a good package. I don't think I would advise anybody to get a humanities degree from anywhere on their own dime.

Harvard is actually offering me more money (maybe a 2 grand more?). School A's rep, great program, and good placements the last 10 years are what has made this decision hard. But you think Harvard is still the better choice?

Something else I've been trying to factor in is that interdisciplinary humanities is the most precarious sector of academia. Not that either of these programs will have their funding cut (theyre both rich) but if school A's reputation declines or the field gets cut institutionally, at least a Harvard degree seems more robust.  I don't know if that thinking holds but it seems right?

Chances are, the decision might actually not make that much a difference. You might not get a job anyway, or you might get a job anyway.

My school (an open admissions university that does not offer graduate degrees in the humanities) tends not to hire people from interdisciplinary programs, except for some reason women's studies. African-American studies, Latin American studies, and other such programs (which are minors, not majors) tend to hire people with degrees in a discipline, who are then often housed in another discipline part-time. Of course, now we are not hiring anybody at all.

A Harvard degree would impress people here, probably more than it would be worth. At a research institution, it is possible that another degree would be better received. The problem is, one cannot bet on getting a research-focused job. And I don't think a Harvard degree would hurt a job search at a research institution, either.

So I guess I would lean toward Harvard, not because I think Harvard is better, but because other people think Harvard is better.

However, I am not in your field. I would suggest talking to some people in your field about this.

Go to Harvard. The niche interdisciplinary field will have few openings and will compete with people in traditional departments, and so the ability of the program to place in traditional departments is huge, along with prestige. Most jobs are 3-3 to 4-4 teaching jobs that require the ability to teach broadly in something traditional. You need to be able to position yourself to apply to lots of jobs if you want an academic career.

You hate the location of the first place, and the other place is Harvard — so go with Harvard. They will have a lot of money, which helps for all kinds of extras, and they will have a lot of connections — sounds like win-win to me.

Go to Harvard, duh.

Also, being in a traditional department, does not mean you cannot make forays into interdisciplinary research, and establish a beachhead there, too.

QuoteTheir program is still top ranked within the field, but most of those in the field see Harvard as conservative and not cutting edge.

Harvard, realizing that they are no longer cutting edge, have made you this offer in the hope that you will bring them back to relevance through your novel scholarship.

Quote from: gael2020 on April 03, 2020, 07:19:08 PM

QuoteFor what it is worth, until very recently (25 years ago?) NYU had a rather poor reputation, for students too rich for City and too dumb for Columbia. My recollection is that NYU essentially bought its way out of being a mediocre commuter school in the 1990s, in part by attracting a lot of international students. While its graduate program (at least in history) is top notch, I am not sure about the calibre of its undergraduates. And, given the choice, I might still prefer to get a doctorate from Columbia. (Note: my degree is from neither, and both NYU and Columbia rejected me.)

That said, if you have your heart set on doing a graduate degree in an interdisciplinary program in the humanities, then choose school A if you are independently wealthy or only interested in the intellectual stimulation of the degree. Otherwise, choose Harvard because it would make you more attractive to a wide range of schools who do not care about your speciality.

This is assuming, of course, that Harvard offers you a good package. I don't think I would advise anybody to get a humanities degree from anywhere on their own dime.

Harvard is actually offering me more money (maybe a 2 grand more?). School A's rep, great program, and good placements the last 10 years are what has made this decision hard. But you think Harvard is still the better choice?

Something else I've been trying to factor in is that interdisciplinary humanities is the most precarious sector of academia. Not that either of these programs will have their funding cut (theyre both rich) but if school A's reputation declines or the field gets cut institutionally, at least a Harvard degree seems more robust.  I don't know if that thinking holds but it seems right?

The problem is that it really isn't possible to offer good advice in the abstract here. It really depends on what the field is and what the schools are. It also really depends on who you would be working with. Do you have undergraduate mentors? Ask them. One thing I would try not to consider would be the location. If you're hoping to get a job in academia, having a lot of ideas about places you do and don't want to live is just a recipe for unhappiness. The only way I'd factor it in is in terms of cost of living and the stipend.

Since you say that you'll likely be sending job applications all over the place, I will assume that you are not independently wealthy and will need to work to support yourself. In that case, the question is not "A or B?" but "Should I go to graduate school for an interdisciplinary humanities degree?" And the answer is "no."

Quote from: spork on April 04, 2020, 10:21:41 AM
Since you say that you'll likely be sending job applications all over the place, I will assume that you are not independently wealthy and will need to work to support yourself. In that case, the question is not "A or B?" but "Should I go to graduate school for an interdisciplinary humanities degree?" And the answer is "no."

Sending out job applications for TT positions widely seems to be the norm in academia. I don't know of anyone, even those in top ranked traditional departments, who only send out 5-10 applications with confidence.

Quote from: Caracal on April 04, 2020, 09:30:34 AM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 03, 2020, 07:19:08 PM

QuoteFor what it is worth, until very recently (25 years ago?) NYU had a rather poor reputation, for students too rich for City and too dumb for Columbia. My recollection is that NYU essentially bought its way out of being a mediocre commuter school in the 1990s, in part by attracting a lot of international students. While its graduate program (at least in history) is top notch, I am not sure about the calibre of its undergraduates. And, given the choice, I might still prefer to get a doctorate from Columbia. (Note: my degree is from neither, and both NYU and Columbia rejected me.)

That said, if you have your heart set on doing a graduate degree in an interdisciplinary program in the humanities, then choose school A if you are independently wealthy or only interested in the intellectual stimulation of the degree. Otherwise, choose Harvard because it would make you more attractive to a wide range of schools who do not care about your speciality.

This is assuming, of course, that Harvard offers you a good package. I don't think I would advise anybody to get a humanities degree from anywhere on their own dime.

Harvard is actually offering me more money (maybe a 2 grand more?). School A's rep, great program, and good placements the last 10 years are what has made this decision hard. But you think Harvard is still the better choice?

Something else I've been trying to factor in is that interdisciplinary humanities is the most precarious sector of academia. Not that either of these programs will have their funding cut (theyre both rich) but if school A's reputation declines or the field gets cut institutionally, at least a Harvard degree seems more robust.  I don't know if that thinking holds but it seems right?

The problem is that it really isn't possible to offer good advice in the abstract here. It really depends on what the field is and what the schools are. It also really depends on who you would be working with. Do you have undergraduate mentors? Ask them. One thing I would try not to consider would be the location. If you're hoping to get a job in academia, having a lot of ideas about places you do and don't want to live is just a recipe for unhappiness. The only way I'd factor it in is in terms of cost of living and the stipend.

I emailed two mentors familiar with the field and they both said something like this: School 2 is the top in the country and the superior program in reputation, scholarship production, intellectual community, etc. That being said, Harvard has benefits in terms of getting regional/institutional variety (since my undergrad was at a low ranked public institution) and also more legibility within traditional disciplines, in alt-ac, and the nonacademic job market.

Quote from: gael2020 on April 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

Quote from: spork on April 04, 2020, 10:21:41 AM
Since you say that you'll likely be sending job applications all over the place, I will assume that you are not independently wealthy and will need to work to support yourself. In that case, the question is not "A or B?" but "Should I go to graduate school for an interdisciplinary humanities degree?" And the answer is "no."

Sending out job applications for TT positions widely seems to be the norm in academia. I don't know of anyone, even those in top ranked traditional departments, who only send out 5-10 applications with confidence.

You miss my point. Even with 200 applications, the chances of getting an academic humanities job that pays a living wage are slim to none.

Originally published in 2008 (https://www.amazon.com/Last-Professors-Corporate-University-Humanities/dp/0823279138/).

Published in 2018 (https://www.amazon.com/Demographics-Demand-Higher-Education-Nathan-ebook/dp/B077QJYFH7/).

Quote from: spork on April 04, 2020, 10:51:59 AM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

Quote from: spork on April 04, 2020, 10:21:41 AM
Since you say that you'll likely be sending job applications all over the place, I will assume that you are not independently wealthy and will need to work to support yourself. In that case, the question is not "A or B?" but "Should I go to graduate school for an interdisciplinary humanities degree?" And the answer is "no."

Sending out job applications for TT positions widely seems to be the norm in academia. I don't know of anyone, even those in top ranked traditional departments, who only send out 5-10 applications with confidence.

You miss my point. Even with 200 applications, the chances of getting an academic humanities job that pays a living wage are slim to none.

Originally published in 2008 (https://www.amazon.com/Last-Professors-Corporate-University-Humanities/dp/0823279138/).

Published in 2018 (https://www.amazon.com/Demographics-Demand-Higher-Education-Nathan-ebook/dp/B077QJYFH7/).

Noted. I'll be sure to take a thorough look at both (thanks for linking!). I'm aware of the abysmal state of the job market - and am not under any delusion that I'm special or somehow different.

One of the draws of the Harvard PhD. Even though it has a lesser reputation than school 2, It has more value in the strong possibility that I'll be nonacademic or alt-ac. School 2 seems to place pretty well and is a strong program, but that could very well change, especially for interdisciplinary programs. I'd imagine they're often the first to feel the pressure.

Of course, the better option would have been to have a solid nonacademic plan B. But I was working odd jobs and finished a BA at a low ranked public school, so I don't know what I'd do if I turned down either of these schools.

So, are you even given this choice yet? Are you thinking of applying or were you just accepted and making a decision?

Prestige is a funny thing. Though I suppose Harvard probably has the closest thing to universal national and probably international prestige, US South will swear by Vanderbilt and Duke before Harvard much of the time, especially outside of academia.  Similar with Chicago, Northwestern, Purdue in he Midwest. Stanford and Berkeley in the West, etc..  So, though you probably can't really lose, especially in relative sense, with Harvard, that other school might be fine or better, depending on the field, region of country, whether or not you are in or out of academia.

By the way, in response to the previous post re: NYU....the low regarded commuter school thing was probably mostly the 70's and maybe a bit into the 80's. By the 90's, they were already prestigious in many fields.  Similar transitions with first BU and then Northeastern in
New England.

Anyway, if you hate the region of the non-Harvard place, better not to stay anyway.

Quote from: gael2020 on April 04, 2020, 10:40:58 AM

Quote from: Caracal on April 04, 2020, 09:30:34 AM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 03, 2020, 07:19:08 PM

QuoteFor what it is worth, until very recently (25 years ago?) NYU had a rather poor reputation, for students too rich for City and too dumb for Columbia. My recollection is that NYU essentially bought its way out of being a mediocre commuter school in the 1990s, in part by attracting a lot of international students. While its graduate program (at least in history) is top notch, I am not sure about the calibre of its undergraduates. And, given the choice, I might still prefer to get a doctorate from Columbia. (Note: my degree is from neither, and both NYU and Columbia rejected me.)

That said, if you have your heart set on doing a graduate degree in an interdisciplinary program in the humanities, then choose school A if you are independently wealthy or only interested in the intellectual stimulation of the degree. Otherwise, choose Harvard because it would make you more attractive to a wide range of schools who do not care about your speciality.

This is assuming, of course, that Harvard offers you a good package. I don't think I would advise anybody to get a humanities degree from anywhere on their own dime.

Harvard is actually offering me more money (maybe a 2 grand more?). School A's rep, great program, and good placements the last 10 years are what has made this decision hard. But you think Harvard is still the better choice?

Something else I've been trying to factor in is that interdisciplinary humanities is the most precarious sector of academia. Not that either of these programs will have their funding cut (theyre both rich) but if school A's reputation declines or the field gets cut institutionally, at least a Harvard degree seems more robust.  I don't know if that thinking holds but it seems right?

The problem is that it really isn't possible to offer good advice in the abstract here. It really depends on what the field is and what the schools are. It also really depends on who you would be working with. Do you have undergraduate mentors? Ask them. One thing I would try not to consider would be the location. If you're hoping to get a job in academia, having a lot of ideas about places you do and don't want to live is just a recipe for unhappiness. The only way I'd factor it in is in terms of cost of living and the stipend.

I emailed two mentors familiar with the field and they both said something like this: School 2 is the top in the country and the superior program in reputation, scholarship production, intellectual community, etc. That being said, Harvard has benefits in terms of getting regional/institutional variety (since my undergrad was at a low ranked public institution) and also more legibility within traditional disciplines, in alt-ac, and the nonacademic job market.

How "low-ranked" was your undergrad that you were still able to get into Harvard?

Quote from: ciao_yall on April 04, 2020, 11:38:49 AM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 04, 2020, 10:40:58 AM

Quote from: Caracal on April 04, 2020, 09:30:34 AM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 03, 2020, 07:19:08 PM

QuoteFor what it is worth, until very recently (25 years ago?) NYU had a rather poor reputation, for students too rich for City and too dumb for Columbia. My recollection is that NYU essentially bought its way out of being a mediocre commuter school in the 1990s, in part by attracting a lot of international students. While its graduate program (at least in history) is top notch, I am not sure about the calibre of its undergraduates. And, given the choice, I might still prefer to get a doctorate from Columbia. (Note: my degree is from neither, and both NYU and Columbia rejected me.)

That said, if you have your heart set on doing a graduate degree in an interdisciplinary program in the humanities, then choose school A if you are independently wealthy or only interested in the intellectual stimulation of the degree. Otherwise, choose Harvard because it would make you more attractive to a wide range of schools who do not care about your speciality.

This is assuming, of course, that Harvard offers you a good package. I don't think I would advise anybody to get a humanities degree from anywhere on their own dime.

Harvard is actually offering me more money (maybe a 2 grand more?). School A's rep, great program, and good placements the last 10 years are what has made this decision hard. But you think Harvard is still the better choice?

Something else I've been trying to factor in is that interdisciplinary humanities is the most precarious sector of academia. Not that either of these programs will have their funding cut (theyre both rich) but if school A's reputation declines or the field gets cut institutionally, at least a Harvard degree seems more robust.  I don't know if that thinking holds but it seems right?

The problem is that it really isn't possible to offer good advice in the abstract here. It really depends on what the field is and what the schools are. It also really depends on who you would be working with. Do you have undergraduate mentors? Ask them. One thing I would try not to consider would be the location. If you're hoping to get a job in academia, having a lot of ideas about places you do and don't want to live is just a recipe for unhappiness. The only way I'd factor it in is in terms of cost of living and the stipend.

I emailed two mentors familiar with the field and they both said something like this: School 2 is the top in the country and the superior program in reputation, scholarship production, intellectual community, etc. That being said, Harvard has benefits in terms of getting regional/institutional variety (since my undergrad was at a low ranked public institution) and also more legibility within traditional disciplines, in alt-ac, and the nonacademic job market.

How "low-ranked" was your undergrad that you were still able to get into Harvard?

It's not a public or flagship state school like Berkeley, U Mich, UCLA, or Penn State - if that's what you're asking. I doubt many outside my home state (or even city perhaps) would even know it.

+1 for Harvard. In my humanities field, Harvard is no way the top in terms of faculty quality or overall scholarly firepower. But it still a good choice for most students.

There are both good and not-so-good academic reasons for that. Here's a good one: some of the best students end up going to Harvard (and its few peers) because of the university's overall reputation and because its placement record is on a par with programs that have a deeper and wider footprint in the discipline. So while Harvard's academic infrastructure might not be tops in your field, you will nevertheless have some excellent peers with whom to study. That matters.

Here's another valid argument for Harvard: people who go into smaller academic specializations such as yours will probably not be hired into a department with another specialists in your field. So those doing the hiring won't necessarily have the institutional knowledge to distinguish between a PhD from Harvard as compared to one from an excellent program at a less well known university. Under those circumstances the hiring committee will probably give your application a closer than average look simply because of the Ve-Ri-Tas shield on your faculty advisors' letterhead.

There are two caveats here: The program at Harvard must be good enough to support you in the writing of an excellent dissertation. (I can think of at least one discipline at Harvard that everyone knows is hopelessly behind the times, and whose students therefore struggle to find jobs.) Second, if there is someone at the other institution with whom you really really want to work (and who isn't awash in graduate students), you might consider going there to do the kind of work that you wish to.

Good luck!

Quote from: Chairman X on April 04, 2020, 12:10:32 PM
+1 for Harvard. In my humanities field, Harvard is no way the top in terms of faculty quality or overall scholarly firepower. But it still a good choice for most students.

There are both good and not-so-good academic reasons for that. Here's a good one: some of the best students end up going to Harvard (and its few peers) because of the university's overall reputation and because its placement record is on a par with programs that have a deeper and wider footprint in the discipline. So while Harvard's academic infrastructure might not be tops in your field, you will nevertheless have some excellent peers with whom to study. That matters.

Here's another valid argument for Harvard: people who go into smaller academic specializations such as yours will probably not be hired into a department with another specialists in your field. So those doing the hiring won't necessarily have the institutional knowledge to distinguish between a PhD from Harvard as compared to one from an excellent program at a less well known university. Under those circumstances the hiring committee will probably give your application a closer than average look simply because of the Ve-Ri-Tas shield on your faculty advisors' letterhead.

There are two caveats here: The program at Harvard must be good enough to support you in the writing of an excellent dissertation. (I can think of at least one discipline at Harvard that everyone knows is hopelessly behind the times, and whose students therefore struggle to find jobs.) Second, if there is someone at the other institution with whom you really really want to work (and who isn't awash in graduate students), you might consider going there to do the kind of work that you wish to.

Good luck!

Is this the English department? I've heard they've struggled to place their graduates recently.

Seriously: No. Jobs.

Even if you are in a PhD program that is 100% funded for its entirety, you will not be trained for a career that has a reasonable chance of existing when you exit the program, and during the 5-10 years you are in the program you will not be earning an income/building career experience/moving into more senior and better-paid positions. You might as well shovel cash into a furnace.

Harvard or whatever.... blah blah blah

The reputation of any academic unit is whatever it was 10 years ago. 

If you think you have even the remotest shot at a career in an R01 school, perhaps Nirvana on the Charles is the better choice.  But for those of us at more teaching oriented schools (which far outnumber the R01s) we may be more concerned with your ability to manage a classroom full of 18-22 year olds (Or, gawd forbid, a 40 yr old single mom trying to re-tool her life) than your cutting edge, ground breaking, Nobel Prize worthy research.

I'd rather my college hire a PhD with a realistic perspective on life at schools like mine and who are from Regional Compass Point than an Ivy grad with their head so far up their ass they can see their own teeth. 

I've watched colleagues with quite undistinguished pedigrees be wildly successful and Ivy-ish colleagues struggle.  Better you get good career-focused advice from your faculty than be out on the ragged edge of research but unprepared for the realities of life at a SLAC, or a regional comprehensive.  It's far more likely your future is in freshman comp or Chem 100 than it is changing the future of your discipline. 

Quote from: secundem_artem on April 04, 2020, 02:37:06 PM
Harvard or whatever.... blah blah blah

The reputation of any academic unit is whatever it was 10 years ago. 

If you think you have even the remotest shot at a career in an R01 school, perhaps Nirvana on the Charles is the better choice.  But for those of us at more teaching oriented schools (which far outnumber the R01s) we may be more concerned with your ability to manage a classroom full of 18-22 year olds (Or, gawd forbid, a 40 yr old single mom trying to re-tool her life) than your cutting edge, ground breaking, Nobel Prize worthy research.

I'd rather my college hire a PhD with a realistic perspective on life at schools like mine and who are from Regional Compass Point than an Ivy grad with their head so far up their ass they can see their own teeth. 

I've watched colleagues with quite undistinguished pedigrees be wildly successful and Ivy-ish colleagues struggle.  Better you get good career-focused advice from your faculty than be out on the ragged edge of research but unprepared for the realities of life at a SLAC, or a regional comprehensive.  It's far more likely your future is in freshman comp or Chem 100 than it is changing the future of your discipline.

What would you say is the best way to make yourself legible as teacher and not a "ivy grad with their head up their ass?"

I'm from an underfunded urban public institution - and a lot of my organizing work (and my full time job) has been centered on public education and diversity initiatives for higher education. So I'm more than familiar with the struggles of nontraditional students, being one myself. That being said, I doubt SC's will care about my undergrad.

The PhD program in question allows TA'ships/Fellows but not teaching your own stand alone courses. What would you want to see from a prospective hire that could accommodate to that weakness?

Depending on the humanities field, also, some of the grad programs are tiny.

Advisors don't want a lot of advisees, they want to research and write. Unlike the labor-extensive sciences, where a nice grad farm fuels the labs and turns out papers at a respectable pace, the humanities are labor-intensive, and time spent working with your grad student(s) doesn't necessarily contribute to your own work.

The art history program has, say, six profs to cover basic teaching topics, and there are funds for, say, three new grad students each year. So, max, there might be 6 grad students in that program because every other year 1-3 slots fall open and a new student is taken on. Musicology is another boutique department. Econ might be bigger, History maybe the same, etc.

Other programs like the B-School, the Law School, or KSG (that deal with, and attract more, money, somehow) might be a little bigger, but their visibility masks the tiny, hugely competitive programs in the other humanities.

So, you may or may not get any help or attention from your prof (the better-known, the less likely), it's expensive even with financial aid, and you can't eat prestige.

Just to balance the glare in your eyes that's the dazzle of a well-enough-deserved name, but is only as perfect as the humans that make it up.

M.

The academic job market is even worse now than it was when this was written: http://activelearningps.com/2016/03/20/mamas-dont-let-your-babies-grow-up-to-be-academics/ (http://activelearningps.com/2016/03/20/mamas-dont-let-your-babies-grow-up-to-be-academics/).

secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

Quote from: polly_mer on April 04, 2020, 08:06:38 PM
secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

So, for a host of reasons (primarily my admin job) I'm well aware of the abysmal job market. That being said: the Harvard program places %60ish percent of its graduates straight into TT jobs (mostly at public and private R1s). Another 20% do post docs for 1-3 years before landing a TT job. The other 20 pursue alt-ac or non academic jobs. I spent a few days digging up information about cohort placements of the program for the last 10 years/and talking to graduates-so it's not just PR website rhetoric. The job market is an absolute shithole-but I feel like I'm missing something with the totalizing rhetoric. Factually speaking, the majority of graduates of both programs are getting tenure track jobs. How do you account for that?

Another vote for Harvard. It opens so many doors.

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 01:21:42 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on April 04, 2020, 08:06:38 PM
secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

So, for a host of reasons (primarily my admin job) I'm well aware of the abysmal job market. That being said: the Harvard program places %60ish percent of its graduates straight into TT jobs (mostly at public and private R1s). Another 20% do post docs for 1-3 years before landing a TT job. The other 20 pursue alt-ac or non academic jobs. I spent a few days digging up information about cohort placements of the program for the last 10 years/and talking to graduates-so it's not just PR website rhetoric. The job market is an absolute shithole-but I feel like I'm missing something with the totalizing rhetoric. Factually speaking, the majority of graduates of both programs are getting tenure track jobs. How do you account for that?

polly_mer is not in the humanities, and her only experience of the humanities has been at abysmal tiny schools with no graduate programs, so that's how you account for that.

Look, the odds are terrible, but you know that. Interdisciplinary programs are extra hard, but you know that too. If you're passionate about the work and you have the chance to study something you love for a few years while not getting into debt, then do it. You're going in with eyes pretty open; keep one of those eyes out for alt-ac development options (digital humanities groups are a great place to get some skills), do everything you can to bolster your teaching portfolio, and don't expect an academic job on the other end. Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised, maybe not. But you will have spent a few years of your life working on something you truly love.

Quote from: HomunculusParty on April 05, 2020, 05:38:41 AM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 01:21:42 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on April 04, 2020, 08:06:38 PM
secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

So, for a host of reasons (primarily my admin job) I'm well aware of the abysmal job market. That being said: the Harvard program places %60ish percent of its graduates straight into TT jobs (mostly at public and private R1s). Another 20% do post docs for 1-3 years before landing a TT job. The other 20 pursue alt-ac or non academic jobs. I spent a few days digging up information about cohort placements of the program for the last 10 years/and talking to graduates-so it's not just PR website rhetoric. The job market is an absolute shithole-but I feel like I'm missing something with the totalizing rhetoric. Factually speaking, the majority of graduates of both programs are getting tenure track jobs. How do you account for that?

polly_mer is not in the humanities, and her only experience of the humanities has been at abysmal tiny schools with no graduate programs, so that's how you account for that.

Look, the odds are terrible, but you know that. Interdisciplinary programs are extra hard, but you know that too. If you're passionate about the work and you have the chance to study something you love for a few years while not getting into debt, then do it. You're going in with eyes pretty open; keep one of those eyes out for alt-ac development options (digital humanities groups are a great place to get some skills), do everything you can to bolster your teaching portfolio, and don't expect an academic job on the other end. Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised, maybe not. But you will have spent a few years of your life working on something you truly love.

If the bolded parts were tatooed on the foreheads on all PhD candidates, we'd have much less debate on these topics.

Just a reaction to two comments.

First, that being a Harvard PhD makes you not competitive for a position at a 4:4 school.  I disagree. I teach at a 4:4 school, and a significant number of recent hires have degrees from Ivy League schools. And beyond that, most of the others have degrees from top notch public or private schools. Relatively few have degrees from lower ranked doctoral institutions whose students may be closer to our demographic.

Having a PhD from an Ivy League, by itself, will not qualify you for a job at my school. And it could be a sign of being to focused on specialization and research, two things that are not particularly  useful at a school whose focus is on teaching a wide range of courses to students who  are often the product of deficient public schools. So many Ivy League degree holders don't make it past the first stage of the job search here.

However, an Ivy League or similar PhD holder who is able to show experience and interest in our type of school would be viewed very well.  So my advice in general is if you are going to get a PhD in the humanities, go to as prestigious a school as possible but teach as many different classes as possible, maybe by adjuncting at a local community college or public teaching school.

Still, that probably wouldn't help you at my department right now, because we are not hiring anybody, and will probably not have a line until, well, ever.

Which brings me to my second point. By all means go to graduate school in the humanities if you truly like your subject, you get a good package from a prestigious school, and you are, genuinely, okay with the fact that it is very unlikely you will get a full time job (and in any case, one that pays better than most other jobs you could find right now).

But please don't do it because graduate school means "doing something you love." I love history. I love reading about history, I love researching history. I love teaching history. I love talking about history with my friends. I love visiting historical archives on my holidays.

That said, I hated graduate school. Until I got through all my coursework (or actually, transferred to a British university after studying for several years in the US) I hated graduate school. It was made up of skimming (not reading) endless monographs without the time or attention span to actually savor them; learning to talk about books I hadn't read; focusing more on what other people have said about history instead of learning about history itself. I am not arguing that this is not necessary for the professional formation of a historian. It is quite useful to me now. But it was not fun, much less "something I love".

Only once I started my dissertation was I able to actually focus on research, which is what I love. And only after I finished my dissertation was I able to take the time to sit down and enjoy reading a history book.

So my advice, for what it is worth, is if you love a subject, forget about graduate school that probably won't get you a job and probably won't be enjoyable, and instead get a job in some office job you can leave at the end of the day. And read books you find enjoyable on the train to work, and at home in the evening.

That of course is not the question that the OP asked, however.

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 01:21:42 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on April 04, 2020, 08:06:38 PM
secundum_artem was too polite: you're not competitive for a 4/4 teaching job with a Harvard PhD at most places.  Add in the interdisciplinary humanities area and spork's articles seem optimistic on job prospects.

If you're already working an admin or outreach job, then an online relevant master's degree is a better job bet, especially if you want to continue to live in the same town.

So, for a host of reasons (primarily my admin job) I'm well aware of the abysmal job market. That being said: the Harvard program places %60ish percent of its graduates straight into TT jobs (mostly at public and private R1s). Another 20% do post docs for 1-3 years before landing a TT job. The other 20 pursue alt-ac or non academic jobs. I spent a few days digging up information about cohort placements of the program for the last 10 years/and talking to graduates-so it's not just PR website rhetoric. The job market is an absolute shithole-but I feel like I'm missing something with the totalizing rhetoric. Factually speaking, the majority of graduates of both programs are getting tenure track jobs. How do you account for that?

What percentage of the people who start the program graduate from the program in a reasonable amount of time?  I can think of several situations where only a small percentage of the people who start actually graduate.  Thus, looking only at placement of graduates is missing a key piece of information.

How many students at any one time do either programs have?  I, personally, would be much more optimistic if the program only admits a handful of people each year, fully funds them, and nurtures them such that they are serving apprenticeships through to launching as junior faculty.

Are those TT statistics still true for the cohorts who started in the past 3-5 years and graduated in the past year or so?  What happened to people who graduated 8 years ago is almost irrelevant now.  If the people who started a few years ago are graduating in a reasonable time and are still getting placed almost immediately into TT positions or good TT positions after only a year as a postdoc, then, sure, this might be a good program.

Most important for you, how many people who have backgrounds like yours in the past few years have graduated in a timely manner and gotten a TT position like the one you want?  The humanities quit lit and often overlapping anger lit has a non-insignificant fraction of people who quit because when they finally got the job they were sure they wanted, it turned out to be much less desirable in the reality than the abstract.  That is more likely to be true for people who didn't grow up in the elite universe and thus are still seen as outsiders (a possibility for you based on information in this thread).  That is more likely to be true for people who leave their supportive communities and family for a prestigious job that turns out to not be nearly as day-to-day important as having a "lesser life" filled with family, friends, hobbies, and a good enough job.

I would also look very carefully at cost of living.  Harvard may pay slightly more than Program A, but do either pay enough for you to live like a real grownup when you move away from a possible barter economy in the community where you have always lived?

My favorite cost of living calculator is https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/
A salary of $30,000 in Columbus, Ohio should increase to $60,265 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in Indianapolis, Indiana should increase to $61,980 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin should increase to $60,533 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in Atlanta, Georgia should increase to $47,210 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in College Station, Texas should increase to $54,975 in Boston, Massachusetts
A salary of $30,000 in Little Rock, Arkansas should increase to $61,769 in Boston, Massachusetts


What's my experience?  I read a ton on academia and I particularly follow the quit lit.  Dismiss me all you like for not being in the humanities, but arguing only from personal experience is how Professor Sparklepony says things like "don't expect a job at the end" and yet within rounding of everyone expects an academic job at the end and is angry when the statistics apply to them as well.

I can think of a few places where program prestige would really matter. Clark University's geography department comes to mind, as do some creative writing programs. Almost everything else would be less important than an Ivy brand.

There are two ways to think about hiring. One is the statistical: Polly and Spork have provided some of the broader studies, and you've done your homework on the individual departments. You seem pretty clear-eyed about the odds.

The other way to think about hiring is to acknowledge that specific decisions are overdetermined. Somebody on the hiring committee may have sworn a blood oath never to hire another Harvard grad. Or SLC grad. Or Southerner. Or whatever. They may / may not hire interdisciplinary candidates. And next year's search committee might do the opposite. They may think you have too many publications. Or not enough. Or the wrong kind.

The only general advice that I can offer is to try to cover all of the basis, at least a little bit. Do some kind of teaching; ideally a section of your own design, but definitely whatever they will pay for. Do at least a little bit of service. (Your administration experience may or may not already tick that box.) Publish the best work that you have, as soon as it is good enough. Go to at least one national conference, and become a member of the relevant professional societies.

And, of course, network. That's why people go to Harvard, even if other programs are "better" in some way; the exception is when the people with whom you want to network are at the other place. Even in a big field, there aren't that many people in one's are of specialization, and doors get opened more often by people who know you, either in person or by reputation.

I was pretty clueless, both when applying to grad schools and when applying for jobs. There's a lot of good advice on this forum (and on the old CHE one, if you search the archives). But you'll notice that your queries are being absorbed into a much bigger, and long-running, argument about the future of higher education. The advice upthread to ask a mentor in the field or two is solid, but needs to be supplemented by your own research, which you've done.

Honest response? If you are picking between programs #1 and #2, you are way ahead of the game. If your analysis is correct (that you'll stand a better chance of getting a job with Harvard, but a better chance of an academic position in the filed with not-Harvard), then it's even more important to scrutinize the placement rates, and to think long and hard about how the academic landscape might change in five years.

Good luck, and congratulations.

dc

If I get an online PhD from Southern New Hampshire University will I be respected?

Because Southern New Hampshire University sounds like a fancy New Englandy Ive League place.

About a hundred years ago I was in the same position to decide between graduate schools in a humanities field. One was very good, and offered a nice stipend. Others were more prestigious. I went to my mentor, who said to me, "graduate school will last several years, but your degree will follow you forever." I opted for the prestigious one.

The first thing that happened when I got there was that I began working with a couple of faculty I admired, and ended up switching to their field. I hadn't predicted that.

The second thing is that the degree has indeed followed me forever. Even now, when I apply for a grant, I have to fill in what schools I got my degrees. I know that my Ph.D. institution helped me in my job searches, and after that I'm sure it helped in my ability to get grants and to publish.

I did the opposite. More prestigious program did not offer me a stipend. Less prestigious did.
One mentor said go with less prestigious because they offered money. Another said go for prestigious and wait tables. I knew I didn't want to wait tables or work as a stock clerk in a grocery store again, so I went for less prestigious. It was also in a much more fun location.

That eventually got me a prestigious (although I would hardly say most prestigious) post-doc.

More "eventually"'s and I got my current job at a 100-ish ranked SLAC.

By the way, the more prestigious program was not Harvard or even close. It was a flagship state school.  The less prestigious was a private in the Northeast.

I've been going through placements of both places with a fine tooth comb. The placement rates are almost parallel (60ish) percent. However, interestingly enough it seems that the second school places its students much quicker while the Harvard students either post doc for a few years or do alt-ac work. I don't really know what information to base my decision on - obviously the second school is top ranked in the interdisciplinary field and has been doing well at placing its graduates into interdisciplinary jobs. (and is a more supportive environment btw) But the future of Ethnic and American Studies is precarious and seeing as how there are like 5 Ethnic/AMST jobs per year, I don't know how this program is doing as well as it is. On the other hand is Harvard which has the name which will always last. Don't know how to process this information.

How many people enrolled in each program?  A handful of new graduates total in both programs for five total TT jobs in the nation would indicate that only these graduates are getting the jobs and one just waits until a job opens.  Reports from anger lit indicates that some fields are at that point where only certain program graduates get any of the desirable TT jobs.

I will also mention that 60% is only slightly more than half.  What will you do when you're in the wrong half?

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 12:05:13 PM
I've been going through placements of both places with a fine tooth comb. The placement rates are almost parallel (60ish) percent. However, interestingly enough it seems that the second school places its students much quicker while the Harvard students either post doc for a few years or do alt-ac work. I don't really know what information to base my decision on - obviously the second school is top ranked in the interdisciplinary field and has been doing well at placing its graduates into interdisciplinary jobs. (and is a more supportive environment btw) But the future of Ethnic and American Studies is precarious and seeing as how there are like 5 Ethnic/AMST jobs per year, I don't know how this program is doing as well as it is. On the other hand is Harvard which has the name which will always last. Don't know how to process this information.

Unlike those above, I do not read your posts as someone going into this with your eyes open.  I mean  you no disrespect, but your concern for prestige and cutting edge research suggests to me you have the stars in your eyes.  And again, please no disrespect meant at all, but could it be that your modest background and undistinguished undergraduate institution have left you with the belief that a "life of the mind" is  life to be devoutly wished?  It sounds great but even Harold Bloom had to make mortgage payments and it seems unlikely that Ethnic and American studies is anything other than a very long-shot bet.

The way to process this, as suggested by spork and polly above, is DON'T.

QuoteUnlike those above, I do not read your posts as someone going into this with your eyes open.  I mean  you no disrespect, but your concern for prestige and cutting edge research suggests to me you have the stars in your eyes.  And again, please no disrespect meant at all, but could it be that your modest background and undistinguished undergraduate institution have left you with the belief that a "life of the mind" is  life to be devoutly wished?  It sounds great but even Harold Bloom had to make mortgage payments and it seems unlikely that Ethnic and American studies is anything other than a very long-shot bet.

The way to process this, as suggested by spork and polly above, is DON'T.

My concern with prestige and cutting edge research is entirely situated within its relationship to employment. All of my concerns, questions, and digging have been in relationship to my employment prospects for a tenure track job. Programs with strong resources, housed within a prestigious institution, and a reputation for cutting edge scholarship and/or faculty are all factors that contribute to a program's placement rates. And I've dug up/tracked the placements for both program for the past 10 years to make sure I'm making an informed decision based on empirical data rather than optimistic rhetoric.

I don't know how you could extrapolate from what I've said that I'm going into a doctoral program in pursuit of some romanticized life of the mind, to "change the academy" or to tell people I went to Harvard.

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 02:07:22 PM
I don't know how you could extrapolate from what I've said that I'm going into a doctoral program in pursuit of some romanticized life of the mind, to "change the academy" or to tell people I went to Harvard.

It is because you entered a long conversation that has previously included some astoundingly naive people who got PhDs in the humanities and are now surprised that a TT job isn't sitting there for them so that they can engage in a romantic life of the mind.

A lot of assumptions were made about you before you had a chance to say much because so many have asked similar questions.

You seem to be a resourceful person who is at low risk of waiting tables if you don't get that ideal TT position. What will matter most in grad school is what kind of resources will be available to you, such as regular intellectual discussion with the top minds in the field, regular contact with important people in your field globally so they know what you bring to the table, and whatever research tools you will need.

To help you decide, call some of the people you hope to engage with at each school. Call some of the grad students. It may turn out that the people who you hope will be good are jerks, semiretired, or otherwise unlikely to be big assets. You can discover whether they are so high in the ivory towers that they have no idea what the jobs situation is. You might also discover some new faculty who will be the bigshots of the 2030s.

Quote from: Hibush on April 05, 2020, 02:59:57 PM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 02:07:22 PM
I don't know how you could extrapolate from what I've said that I'm going into a doctoral program in pursuit of some romanticized life of the mind, to "change the academy" or to tell people I went to Harvard.

It is because you entered a long conversation that has previously included some astoundingly naive people who got PhDs in the humanities and are now surprised that a TT job isn't sitting there for them so that they can engage in a romantic life of the mind.

I continue to think that these people are actually pretty few in number. It might help if we stopped assuming they need to be addressed in conversations where nobody has expressed any particularly naive sentiments. Gael has said multiple times that they understand that entering a interdisciplinary humanities graduate program may well not result in a tenure track job. Good advice is about making sure the person asking has thought about the questions involved, not yelling at them for not making the choice you think they should make.

There are more questions that might be worth thinking about such as: Are there any other ways that you could pursue this interest outside of the academy that might appeal to you? What about the interdisciplinary approach do you find so appealing? If you went to a more traditional department, would that make you more competitive for a wider variety of jobs, or put you in a subfield with more demand?

Quote from: Caracal on April 06, 2020, 06:22:31 AM

Quote from: Hibush on April 05, 2020, 02:59:57 PM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 02:07:22 PM
I don't know how you could extrapolate from what I've said that I'm going into a doctoral program in pursuit of some romanticized life of the mind, to "change the academy" or to tell people I went to Harvard.

It is because you entered a long conversation that has previously included some astoundingly naive people who got PhDs in the humanities and are now surprised that a TT job isn't sitting there for them so that they can engage in a romantic life of the mind.

I continue to think that these people are actually pretty few in number. It might help if we stopped assuming they need to be addressed in conversations where nobody has expressed any particularly naive sentiments.

Do you read any of the media where many would-be academics gather, Caracal?  You can't or you wouldn't estimate the total number as "few".  It's few in terms of how many people in the US have graduate degrees in any field.  However, that frustration was loud among humanities and certain social science fields in the early 1990s when I started college and started reading CHE, The Atlantic, Harper's Bazaar, New York Times, and The New Yorker in the college library.

That frustration is now deafening anywhere that a fair number of humanities faculty gather and people who finished their graduate degrees recently are somehow now just finding out now that the job market is beyond terrible and even the adjunct positions are declining rapidly as institutions close, go to canned courses with remote adjuncts, or even consolidate courses to be huge (reports of sections that are literally more than a thousand students are appearing with more frequency in articles on higher ed in the US).

Doing the research to come up with the information that a given field is averaging 5 (FIVE!) TT jobs nationally in recent years is a great start.  Continuing the conversation of "do I go to this program or that program" with no indication of how those five jobs compare to the number of job seekers is naive. 

Continuing the conversation with no data related to how academic institutions are changing to meet changing student demographics is naive.  Assuming that five annual TT jobs will continue indefinitely and that these two programs will continue to place graduates into those jobs seems naive.

In addition, a thread with a public discussion is not just for the person asking advice.  People who are reading along as lurkers need to know about the ongoing conversation regarding graduate school in certain fields, what all the considerations are, and why the logical conclusion in most cases ought to be "don't go unless you meet all these somewhat unusual criteria".

If you've already married well, OP, then you, too, could think about doing a graduate degree for the intellectual satisfaction, although go reread jersyjay's post because many people find that graduate school, or even the life of the mind as secumdem_artem wrote, isn't all they thought it would be.

I want to point out that interdisciplinary studies, in their best incarnations, help to address very uneven approaches by scholars who have expertise in one field and try to appropriate (without really understanding) some aspects of work in another field that they find congenial to their own, or that interests them as a sideline, or just seems sexy at the moment.

That has been a huge problem in the liturgical arts: as one reviewer noted, "[...author] has applied a thin veneer of art historical understanding to a deeper knowledge of theology without quite understanding either very well. In fact, most artists understand theology better than most theologians understand the arts." (the author in question was someone who was riffing on Tillich's late interest in the arts, trying to piggyback on that and his own wife's dedicated expertise in art history without a lot of analytical success).

Likewise, in liturgical dance history, people have tried to use visual sources to "prove" the existence of danced worship at times and in places where that is neither was the sources were showing, nor were visual works then produced as documentary evidence but as metaphoric illustrations of specific ideas or contextual relationships.

In one case, I had to stop helping a friend who was writing a paper on a particular kind of imagery because she wouldn't listen to a very good scholar's input on what she was trying to say (and wouldn't do any of the pertinent readings that person was suggesting, saying they were 'irrelevant to the topic').

She didn't really seem to value the art historical work of several reliable folks as useful input to the theological point she was trying to make--leveraging the theological mare's nest of ideas she'd constructed out of whole cloth over a couple decades of work on the visual source that gave much more concise (if contrary) input on the imagery she was trying to invoke.

She got the art historian to drop off her committee, got someone else to read for her, and passed her defense....sigh.

A good interdisciplinary program requires solid preparation in both (or all) the disciplines in question, and holds students' feet to the fire in terms of being responsible scholars in each area they are working in.

Conversation between, but not irresponsible conflation of, findings in each area are upheld as a valid pursuit, while a single-focus program might look good and produce people who are quite sure of themselves--but who skew the written record and give birth to craziness down the line.

Just sayin'....

M.

QuoteThat frustration is now deafening anywhere that a fair number of humanities faculty gather and people who finished their graduate degrees recently are somehow now just finding out now that the job market is beyond terrible and even the adjunct positions are declining rapidly as institutions close, go to canned courses with remote adjuncts, or even consolidate courses to be huge (reports of sections that are literally more than a thousand students are appearing with more frequency in articles on higher ed in the US).

I am teaching a graduate seminar in the humanities now. Every one of the students in it is well aware of the job market prospects. They chose to go ahead anyway, and do think about alternative careers for when they finish. They'd love a professorial career, but know that the odds are against it. They love what they're doing but their eyes are wide open.

Quote from: fourhats on April 06, 2020, 12:47:51 PM

QuoteThat frustration is now deafening anywhere that a fair number of humanities faculty gather and people who finished their graduate degrees recently are somehow now just finding out now that the job market is beyond terrible and even the adjunct positions are declining rapidly as institutions close, go to canned courses with remote adjuncts, or even consolidate courses to be huge (reports of sections that are literally more than a thousand students are appearing with more frequency in articles on higher ed in the US).

I am teaching a graduate seminar in the humanities now. Every one of the students in it is well aware of the job market prospects. They chose to go ahead anyway, and do think about alternative careers for when they finish. They'd love a professorial career, but know that the odds are against it. They love what they're doing but their eyes are wide open.

Does thinking about alternative careers translate into observable actions to prepare for those careers?

I ask because a common pattern is to recite the right words up to the point of being smacked in the face with the reality of being the person who isn't getting the faculty job and having to deal with the opportunity costs of spending grad school focused on the academics.

My favorite example continues to be the historian who was gung-ho on a PhD as a non-academic credential who then wrote https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2223-odds-are-your-doctorate-will-not-prepare-you-for-a-profession-outside-academe after finding out the reality.

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 12:05:13 PM
But the future of Ethnic and American Studies is precarious and seeing as how there are like 5 Ethnic/AMST jobs per year, I don't know how this program is doing as well as it is. On the other hand is Harvard which has the name which will always last.

Harvard made the news this winter for denying tenure to Dr. García Peña in the Ethnic Studies program.  "Many students and scholars have questioned Harvard's overall commitment to ethnic studies. They've also pointed out that García Peña is now in the strange position of being on the hiring committee for a four-person ethnic studies faculty cluster as she prepares to leave campus." (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/12/10/more-support-harvard-ethnic-studies-scholar-denied-tenure)

The Harvard Crimson points out four decades of minimal support for Ethnic Studies at Harvard: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/23/road-to-ethnic-studies/

When I look at the alumni placement webpage for the PhD program for Harvard's American studies (http://americanstudies.unix.fas.harvard.edu/?cat=36) and put it in a spreadsheet so I can sort, I see

* 3-6 PhDs awarded every year (big numbers if the total national TT jobs are averaging 5 every year)

* About 20 of the about 40 positions listed are non-academic or are contingent academic positions.

* Among the (probable based on title) TT faculty positions listed, most are related to history with a smattering of American studies, some are in English, and one probably non-TT position is in women's studies.  There are no ethnic studies positions listed.

When I go look at the student interests page, I see 34 names currently listed. (http://americanstudies.unix.fas.harvard.edu/?cat=34)  That could indicate a 6-7 year program with 5-7 students admitted each year with a little attrition or it could mean something else since no dates are listed.

None of this paints a rosy picture of going to Harvard, spending a few years in a joint American and Ethnic Studies program, and then getting a tenure track position somewhere in American and Ethnic Studies.

Quote from: polly_mer on April 07, 2020, 06:01:44 AM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 12:05:13 PM
But the future of Ethnic and American Studies is precarious and seeing as how there are like 5 Ethnic/AMST jobs per year, I don't know how this program is doing as well as it is. On the other hand is Harvard which has the name which will always last.

Harvard made the news this winter for denying tenure to Dr. García Peña in the Ethnic Studies program.  "Many students and scholars have questioned Harvard's overall commitment to ethnic studies. They've also pointed out that García Peña is now in the strange position of being on the hiring committee for a four-person ethnic studies faculty cluster as she prepares to leave campus." (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/12/10/more-support-harvard-ethnic-studies-scholar-denied-tenure)

None of this paints a rosy picture of going to Harvard, spending a few years in a joint American and Ethnic Studies program, and then getting a tenure track position somewhere in American and Ethnic Studies.

Some observers worried that Garcia Peña's tenure denial was really a rejection of the Ethnic Studies program by the Harvard establishment. Some said that Garcia Peña didn't measure up to Harvard scholarly expectations, while others said that she was one of the top scholars in the field. All of those things may be true. If so, the department is not a good bet.

This is a point in American culture where ethnic studies needs to contribute heavily to polity. Staying in the field is valuable to society. I'm not sure this avenue is the one that will be influential.

Quote from: Hibush on April 07, 2020, 05:55:48 PM

Quote from: polly_mer on April 07, 2020, 06:01:44 AM

Quote from: gael2020 on April 05, 2020, 12:05:13 PM
But the future of Ethnic and American Studies is precarious and seeing as how there are like 5 Ethnic/AMST jobs per year, I don't know how this program is doing as well as it is. On the other hand is Harvard which has the name which will always last.

Harvard made the news this winter for denying tenure to Dr. García Peña in the Ethnic Studies program.  "Many students and scholars have questioned Harvard's overall commitment to ethnic studies. They've also pointed out that García Peña is now in the strange position of being on the hiring committee for a four-person ethnic studies faculty cluster as she prepares to leave campus." (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/12/10/more-support-harvard-ethnic-studies-scholar-denied-tenure)

None of this paints a rosy picture of going to Harvard, spending a few years in a joint American and Ethnic Studies program, and then getting a tenure track position somewhere in American and Ethnic Studies.

Some observers worried that Garcia Peña's tenure denial was really a rejection of the Ethnic Studies program by the Harvard establishment. Some said that Garcia Peña didn't measure up to Harvard scholarly expectations, while others said that she was one of the top scholars in the field. All of those things may be true. If so, the department is not a good bet.

This is a point in American culture where ethnic studies needs to contribute heavily to polity. Staying in the field is valuable to society. I'm not sure this avenue is the one that will be influential.

Since American Studies is such a small field - do reputations like these matter since its students seem to be applying outside of AMST? Would the name brand of Harvard supersede even a lousy department reputation?

I really don't have an insider knowledge of how Search Committees work so I'm genuinely curious. And department reputation is fascinating to me. It's not official and yet it seems to have such a powerful force such that even  the name Harvard or Yale or Princeton might not help one at all.

On the question of program prestige:

I think to some degree it depends what school you applying for and who is on the search committee. If I (a historian) were put on the SC to hire, say an American Studies professor (which is not out the possibility at my school), I have no idea which program is the best.

For that matter, I am not entirely sure what history programs are the best. I mean, is Harvard better than Berkeley in history, in terms of prestige?

Then, of course, there is specialization. If I were on the SC for an Asian historian, I couldn't tell you what the most prestigious program is.

For me, prestige is really a mixture of people whose work I have read; dissertations I have heard about; people I have met at conferences; and general university prestige.

That being said, at my school, as I mentioned, somebody with a degree from a select range of prestigious schools would be looked favorably upon, if he or she also showed experience/aptitude/interest in the type of school we are and the type of students we have. But since we are not a research university, we probably wouldn't parse the difference between one prestigious school vs. another. We tend to get more hires from the prestigious schools within a 100-mile radius, but that's probably because people from those schools are more likely to apply.

Quote from: jerseyjay on April 05, 2020, 06:41:05 AM

But please don't do it because graduate school means "doing something you love." I love history. I love reading about history, I love researching history. I love teaching history. I love talking about history with my friends. I love visiting historical archives on my holidays.

That said, I hated graduate school. Until I got through all my coursework (or actually, transferred to a British university after studying for several years in the US) I hated graduate school. It was made up of skimming (not reading) endless monographs without the time or attention span to actually savor them; learning to talk about books I hadn't read; focusing more on what other people have said about history instead of learning about history itself. I am not arguing that this is not necessary for the professional formation of a historian. It is quite useful to me now. But it was not fun, much less "something I love".

Only once I started my dissertation was I able to actually focus on research, which is what I love. And only after I finished my dissertation was I able to take the time to sit down and enjoy reading a history book.

So my advice, for what it is worth, is if you love a subject, forget about graduate school that probably won't get you a job and probably won't be enjoyable, and instead get a job in some office job you can leave at the end of the day. And read books you find enjoyable on the train to work, and at home in the evening.

That of course is not the question that the OP asked, however.

Another former history PhD student here.  Jerseyjay's description rings true.  The work load is insane, it's very hard to make ends meet, and grad school tends to be socially isolating.  For me it was by and large a very unhappy time in life.  I persisted for six years because I felt like once I was well and truly immersed in it I felt like I had no choice but to follow through. 

Looking back, I'm glad that I learned what I did.  I still use much of it.  I also knew a couple of students in the same program who gave the impression that they were truly having a good time.  When all is said and done, though, I really don't think I'd do it over again if I had the chance, knowing what I do now.  I'd have a hard time recommending in good conscience that anybody try grad school.

IF you decide, despite all the efforts at warning here, to go ahead and try grad school, be prepared to let yourself bail out if you don't find yourself enjoying what you're doing.  Don't persist at grad school unless you really find you like the studies.

Quote from: polly_mer on April 06, 2020, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: fourhats on April 06, 2020, 12:47:51 PM

QuoteThat frustration is now deafening anywhere that a fair number of humanities faculty gather and people who finished their graduate degrees recently are somehow now just finding out now that the job market is beyond terrible and even the adjunct positions are declining rapidly as institutions close, go to canned courses with remote adjuncts, or even consolidate courses to be huge (reports of sections that are literally more than a thousand students are appearing with more frequency in articles on higher ed in the US).

I am teaching a graduate seminar in the humanities now. Every one of the students in it is well aware of the job market prospects. They chose to go ahead anyway, and do think about alternative careers for when they finish. They'd love a professorial career, but know that the odds are against it. They love what they're doing but their eyes are wide open.

Does thinking about alternative careers translate into observable actions to prepare for those careers?

I ask because a common pattern is to recite the right words up to the point of being smacked in the face with the reality of being the person who isn't getting the faculty job and having to deal with the opportunity costs of spending grad school focused on the academics.

My favorite example continues to be the historian who was gung-ho on a PhD as a non-academic credential who then wrote https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2223-odds-are-your-doctorate-will-not-prepare-you-for-a-profession-outside-academe after finding out the reality.

That article polly links also rings true.  Earning a PhD and failing to find a secure place in academia afterward usually means, as it did in my case, having to write off all those years of work and start over on a new career almost from scratch.  In my case I was able to use a library assistant job at my grad institution as a basis for building a library career.  But that took years of dues-paying and online classes for a library degree to lead to a professional-level position. 

In fairness, the writer of the article above seems to have enjoyed her education, and to have no regrets about the time spent getting it before buckling down and starting on an alternate career.  For some people grad school seems to be its own reward.  Again, if you do start grad school and find it unrewarding, be prepared to drop out before investing multiple years of your life in it.

Quote from: gael2020 on April 07, 2020, 07:43:51 PM
I really don't have an insider knowledge of how Search Committees work so I'm genuinely curious. And department reputation is fascinating to me. It's not official and yet it seems to have such a powerful force such that even  the name Harvard or Yale or Princeton might not help one at all.

Search committees are composed of human beings who have constructed their own shortcuts to make decisions because no one has time to research every single decision from scratch every time.  Ain't nobody got time for that, as some of my colleagues would say.

How those shortcuts work in practice is very SC dependent, even outside of academia.

When I've been a research-heavy places where nearly everyone on the SC will know most of the practitioners in the field, we tend to select for people we know or at least people who are close affiliates with people we know.  Thus, Harvard/Yale/Princeton is almost irrelevant because the list is much more:

* Steve whom we all know and would like day-to-day, but isn't exactly the right fit for the job ad we posted, but probably could make the shift
* Margo who was Jamil's postdoc and therefore does know process X
* Lamar who was Steve's postdoc back in the day and has been off establishing his own group
* June who is the biggest contrarian ever and thus would be unpleasant day-to-day, but is by far the most creative of the pool and most likely to figure out the big problem we're trying to solve.

At a certain level, the exact ranking of a department doesn't matter because we're doing everything based on our personal knowledge of the relatively small research community.  There's no way we're hiring an outsider because it's clear they aren't working in the relevant area doing relevant things.

That's very different than when I was at a tiny, rural college where we were evaluating strangers well outside our field (the SC was an engineer, a nurse, a religion professor, and an art professor to hire the most recent historian who would be the only historian employed at the time).  In that case, the question was mostly how much experience candidates had teaching at a place like ours and whether the focus in the narratives aligned well with the job we had. 

As jersey jay wrote, in that situation, coming from a highly ranked department in the field/specialty was not something anyone knew and therefore didn't care about.  Direct experience at an institution like ours was far more important.

In that situation, being from HYP is a huge negative because it's likely that a person who liked that atmosphere (urban, research focused) well enough to stay for years to get a PhD is not going to like our situation (so rural that going to Taco Bell counts as a big outing to an ethnic restaurant and mostly teaching gen ed to underprepared students who resent taking gen ed classes).  It's possible that someone who earned a HYP PhD several years ago and has been at an institution like ours will make a smooth transition and not leave in under a year, but that situation relies heavily on what the narrative states so that the HYP PhD is an afterthought.

For places in-between, I've seen it go both ways in terms of whether HYP (or equivalent in my fields) is a plus or a minus.  It depends very heavily on how the last few people in that situation performed and what the SCs personal ideas of how those folks will fit are. 

If we're hiring a researcher who teaches some who will be OK with the amenities in town, then HYP/equivalent has a chance. 

If we're hiring a teacher who does some research with the resources readily available, then we're going to be looking at someone who has that kind of experience over someone who is used to having real research support including enough time to really dig in.

For the record, most history academic jobs are at teaching-with-some-research or teaching-mostly institutions.  However, most TT/T history jobs are at R1s and similar elite institutions.  Thus, most of the history academic jobs aren't in close alignment with either HYP/top-ranked programs, but attending HYP/top-ranked programs is really the best shot at getting a TT/T history job that includes a significant fraction of research.

Quote from: polly_mer on April 09, 2020, 07:06:21 AM

* Steve whom we all know and would like day-to-day, but isn't exactly the right fit for the job ad we posted, but probably could make the shift
* Margo who was Jamil's postdoc and therefore does know process X
* Lamar who was Steve's postdoc back in the day and has been off establishing his own group
* June who is the biggest contrarian ever and thus would be unpleasant day-to-day, but is by far the most creative of the pool and most likely to figure out the big problem we're trying to solve.

[/quote]

This is a very nice description of a finalist list for R1 hiring. They will likely be ranked differently by each SC member depending on priorities. Likewise among the faculty in the department that endorses the SC recommendation. The chair and the dean that approve and hire will have yet different weightings.

(Our  department culture is strong enough, that I'd go for June and try to socialize her just a enough that the positive culture survives. Hiring her looks like the biggest win. The odds are less than even that I could talk my colleagues into it.)

We would never ever hire anyone who is *obviously* unpleasant. Sorry, but it just won't work.

Quote from: apl68 on April 08, 2020, 03:14:53 PM

Another former history PhD student here.  Jerseyjay's description rings true.  The work load is insane, it's very hard to make ends meet, and grad school tends to be socially isolating.  For me it was by and large a very unhappy time in life.

By and large I enjoyed my time in grad school. That's not to say it was all great, there was certainly a lot of stress and anxiety, but overall it was a pretty good time in my life. It can be hard to know what goes into that, however. I certainly knew people who seemed pretty miserable. Perhaps I was just lucky to be where I was at the same time as a group of other people who I became very good friends with. I sometimes do think that it helped a lot that I went to grad school in an affordable city though. We all lived in pretty decent apartments within walking distance of the school and each other. It made for a very nice environment.

Quote from: Ruralguy on April 09, 2020, 12:19:17 PM
We would never ever hire anyone who is *obviously* unpleasant. Sorry, but it just won't work.

Everyone will indeed weigh all the parameters differently. Avoiding obvious unpleasantness is almost always the right choice,. I interpreted "contrarian" as likely to question the common wisdom and be less likely, or slower, to join a consensus. That doesn't have to be done unpleasantly.

Quote from: Hibush on April 09, 2020, 04:56:42 PM

Quote from: Ruralguy on April 09, 2020, 12:19:17 PM
We would never ever hire anyone who is *obviously* unpleasant. Sorry, but it just won't work.

Everyone will indeed weigh all the parameters differently. Avoiding obvious unpleasantness is almost always the right choice,. I interpreted "contrarian" as likely to question the common wisdom and be less likely, or slower, to join a consensus. That doesn't have to be done unpleasantly.

I really meant that we all know June, have interacted with June, and therefore have a pretty good idea on the jerk-to-genius ratio involved in working with her.

I currently have several coworkers in that category at my non-academic institution.  New managers often talk a good line about collegiality and sometimes get the Junes reassigned to other groups.  When the deliverables for our group cannot be met, the new manager is replaced and the new, new manager lures back sufficient Junes that we can get the work done. 

One of my "favorite" discussion points in some academic groups is why we bother tolerating certain behavior when there are so many equally qualified, equally capable people that we don't have to allow the jerks to have any positions, let alone good ones.

I then think of one of our very special employees.  He won all the internal awards we have to give, many as the youngest person to win that award, and most of the ones in the field during his career.  He also spent most of his career on a behavioral improvement plan to avoid being fired.  While most retirees who wish to do so can arrange to be part-time for a period well into retirement, this individual was invited to a ceremony as a recipient of a life-time achievement award, lauded during the ceremony, marched out with security after the ceremony and told to never again darken our doorstep without a formal invitation and don't hold your breath for anything except scientific knowledge that literally no one else in the world knows.  Six months later, this person was invited to give a technical talk in a packed auditorium, but was not allowed the customary day of small-group discussions and someone in authority was right there ready to cut the microphone if the speaker deviated from the approved slides.

The genius who truly thinks differently may have value over the person who is pleasant enough, but not knock-your-socks-off brilliant.

It is good to assess the jerk-to-genius ratio both on the individual and unit basis. A moderate J:G genius in a low J:G unit can work out. But even a moderate J:G in a unit really needs to watch the numbers. 

Thanks for the parable of the new new manager.

Quote from: Hibush on April 10, 2020, 05:32:32 AM
It is good to assess the jerk-to-genius ratio both on the individual and unit basis. A moderate J:G genius in a low J:G unit can work out. But even a moderate J:G in a unit really needs to watch the numbers. 

I'm in firm agreement that if we can get a low J:G excellent person, then that's the way to go.

However, one thing that was sinking Super Dinky was picking pleasant-enough administrators who would tinker only around the edges instead of picking leaders who would make real changes.  One new new president held a faculty meeting and said the equivalent of: I know you have pent-up ideas on how to save SD; let's hear them.  He was shocked to discover that all the people who had good ideas and were able to get other jobs had left because they were tired of being shut down for not being team players in a time of crisis.  The people remaining were those so close to retirement that they could ride SD all the way down and those who either didn't realize how serious the situation was or couldn't get other jobs even after years of looking.

Quote from: polly_mer on April 10, 2020, 05:37:25 AM

Quote from: Hibush on April 10, 2020, 05:32:32 AM
It is good to assess the jerk-to-genius ratio both on the individual and unit basis. A moderate J:G genius in a low J:G unit can work out. But even a moderate J:G in a unit really needs to watch the numbers. 

I'm in firm agreement that if we can get a low J:G excellent person, then that's the way to go.

However, one thing that was sinking Super Dinky was picking pleasant-enough administrators who would tinker only around the edges instead of picking leaders who would make real changes.

Well, fair enough.  Still, there is a difference between being prepared to speak prophetically and propose making hard choices and merely being an abrasive jerk.  Hibush was probably thinking of J in "abrasive jerk" terms.  I'd agree that it would take a lot of genius to justify putting up with even a moderate amount of that kind of jerk attitude.  And I'm not sure any amount of G could justify a great deal of J. 

I can tolerate most people until one of following happens:

1. They lie, I catch them in the lie, and they still insist its a matter of opinion.

2. They become incomprehensible or self-contradictory to the point of not being able to assign them the smallest of responsibilities.

Quote from: Ruralguy on April 10, 2020, 11:51:34 AM
I can tolerate most people until one of following happens:

1. They lie, I catch them in the lie, and they still insist its a matter of opinion.

2. They become incomprehensible or self-contradictory to the point of not being able to assign them the smallest of responsibilities.

How are you with the person who stands up in every meeting, tells everyone present that they are all idiots unless they adopt whatever the speaker's plan is, and only propose a good plan about 20-30% of the time?

Well, they are almost always liars as well, so I mostly have them covered.

Quote from: Ruralguy on April 12, 2020, 07:08:02 AM
Well, they are almost always liars as well, so I mostly have them covered.

We clearly know different people, unless the lie is that we're all doomed if we don't follow this particular plan.  That one is hard to know in advance every time.

So, Polly, are you thinking about people who are often correct, but are abrasive, so people are reluctant to follow?

Quote from: Ruralguy on April 12, 2020, 03:04:14 PM
So, Polly, are you thinking about people who are often correct, but are abrasive, so people are reluctant to follow?

That's one category. 

A related category is the people who weren't abrasive initially, but just keep getting louder as it's clear that the iceberg is right there and if we don't turn now, then the ship is doomed.  Having a group that doesn't want the reality to be correct so they shoot every messenger who appears drives me nuts.

Another category is the literal geniuses who will be the ones who come up with something fabulous and unexpected, but their spectacular failures outnumber their successes to everyone's frustration.  It's hard to know sometimes if one is shooting a correct messenger because the changes are so drastic and yet uncertain or whether one is declining to follow a brilliant visionary over the cliff to continue to build the airplane in mid-flight.

My "favorite" category involves an exchange along the lines of "You're probably right, but we don't have the resources/time/energy/luxury of doing the right thing so we're going to continue to do this and hope it turns out OK enough that at some future date, we'll have the resources/time/energy/luxury to do the right thing."  The messenger isn't shot, but isn't heeded, either, because staying the course is more important than doing the right thing.

All of these are common at my school...

Our president, especially, is trying to combat that last type and has been somewhat successful.

Another one is : "The war/ill will/lack of collegiality that will ensue among the faculty will make this not worth it, and pretty much over before it starts"

Quote from: Ruralguy on April 13, 2020, 07:16:51 AM
Another one is : "The war/ill will/lack of collegiality that will ensue among the faculty will make this not worth it, and pretty much over before it starts"

My current employer has a new president who is getting tired of hearing that one.  We have had a few retirements announced by senior leadership who were notorious for "not worth it" as an excuse to not make changes to bring us into alignment with standard practices among our sister institutions. 

I anticipate a retirement wave of our equivalent senior faculty as they get told they will toe the line or go away.  I watched people walk out of a huge meeting (~200 people) about six months ago as they asked questions and really, really didn't like the answer of essentially "this will happen and you absolutely, positively, no-foolin' will choose one of these two options if you wish to remain employed here next year.  There is no exemption process and we will physically enter your office to make the necessary changes for Option A if you do not select an option by <date>".

At one time, one of my courses included some basic information on the dissemination of innovations.  About 2.5% of the population are considered innovators - the first in your group of colleagues to have moved on to some new and innovative thing long before the rest of the group has even heard of it.  They are curious, have a high risk tolerance and are quite happy to ski "off piste" when everybody else is sticking to the bunny slopes.   They tend to be socially somewhat isolated and my be seen as incautious.  Don Berwick has written about them in regards to innovation and change in health care - an industry far less open to innovation than most not in the industry would suspect.

One point he stresses is that true innovators are usually considered weird.  They just don't think about things the same way as even those - about 13% of the population - who would be considered "early adopters" (e.g. those who used online to flip their classroom 5 years ago). 

But because innovators are often considered a bit strange, they usually do not get a lot of support.  Berwick's advice is that if you want your organization to be truly innovative, the organization has to tolerate the weirdness and recognize that although Professor Innovator may have some great ideas, some are gonna be clunkers.

But the alternative of just ignoring weird people who are solving new things in new ways is the kiss of death.  And unfortunately, that's probably the social climate most of us live in.  In our search for "collegial" people who "fit our mission" we are going to miss some eggheads who may truly bring value to our organizations.  The academic urge for consensus, collaboration and shared governance may get in the way of encouraging those who are bringing fresh thought to the problem.
 

Quote from: secundem_artem on April 13, 2020, 03:36:41 PM
At one time, one of my courses included some basic information on the dissemination of innovations.  About 2.5% of the population are considered innovators - the first in your group of colleagues to have moved on to some new and innovative thing long before the rest of the group has even heard of it.  They are curious, have a high risk tolerance and are quite happy to ski "off piste" when everybody else is sticking to the bunny slopes.   They tend to be socially somewhat isolated and my be seen as incautious.  Don Berwick has written about them in regards to innovation and change in health care - an industry far less open to innovation than most not in the industry would suspect.

One point he stresses is that true innovators are usually considered weird.  They just don't think about things the same way as even those - about 13% of the population - who would be considered "early adopters" (e.g. those who used online to flip their classroom 5 years ago). 

But because innovators are often considered a bit strange, they usually do not get a lot of support.  Berwick's advice is that if you want your organization to be truly innovative, the organization has to tolerate the weirdness and recognize that although Professor Innovator may have some great ideas, some are gonna be clunkers.

But the alternative of just ignoring weird people who are solving new things in new ways is the kiss of death.  And unfortunately, that's probably the social climate most of us live in.  In our search for "collegial" people who "fit our mission" we are going to miss some eggheads who may truly bring value to our organizations.  The academic urge for consensus, collaboration and shared governance may get in the way of encouraging those who are bringing fresh thought to the problem.

For an R1 department, it's good to have perhaps 20% innovators and 50% early adopters. Less, and you don't lead innovation in the discipline. More, and the department become dysfunctional. Also, misidentifying a misanthrope as an innovator becomes especially problematic if you don't have enough steady hands reinforcing collegiality.